Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

bcortens

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2007
1,324
1,796
Canada
No they don’t, or the people claiming they’re ok with Apple maintaining their margins wouldn’t be busy arguing that Apple should match prices on bottom end Dells.


How is the market tilted toward suppliers?
Not the claim… anyone was making … and you’re misrepresenting the argument. I’ve never said the $599 Mac mini should offer 16/512 and compete with low margin Dells, my position is that rather than lowering the price they should have kept the price the same and bumped up the storage and memory. Which should have been doable given that the off the shelf prices for memory and storage would suggest that Apple could offer more memory and storage at somewhere between $699-799 without hurting margins…
 

bcortens

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2007
1,324
1,796
Canada
Inspiron is the budget Dell desktop, known for ist poor quality and cutting corners everywhere. It uses cheap RAM that’s around 2x slower than M1 Mini and a cheap, low-quality SSD. Sure, Dell can offer these configurations st this price because what they are selling is literal crap. Again, look at their premium line that use more reasonable components if you want to compare prices to Macs.
But that wasn’t the original ask, the original claim was that no one sold 16/512 in base level configurations, sure Inspiron is the cheap line, but the 512 GB storage looks like it would be reasonably fast if not from a reputable manufacturer…
I also don’t think Apple should be matching this Inspiron on price, I think they should start the Mac mini between $699-799 and offer it with 16/512 …
 

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
9,351
12,580
Not the claim… anyone was making … and you’re misrepresenting the argument. I’ve never said the $599 Mac mini should offer 16/512 and compete with low margin Dells, my position is that rather than lowering the price they should have kept the price the same and bumped up the storage and memory. Which should have been doable given that the off the shelf prices for memory and storage would suggest that Apple could offer more memory and storage at somewhere between $699-799 without hurting margins…
So you think it’s possible to sell a $999 product for $799 and keep the margins the same?
 

boss.king

macrumors 603
Apr 8, 2009
6,380
7,623
The mini at that price is overcharging you by about $200, an additional 8GB shouldn’t cost $200, nor should an additional 256GB. You can buy a whole 2TB M.2 for less Fast M2 2TB drive.

Of course the Mac has a faster GPU, switching to Apple silicon was always going to improve GPU performance …

Besides, I don’t think it’s a fair comparison but that isn’t the point. The point is that people were claiming no one offered 512 GB storage or 16GB memory for anywhere near the price of the Mac mini… I disputed that claim.

I have said that I think the mini should start at $699 and offer more memory and storage rather than creating a pointless base model at a lower price
If you're going to compare literally any system you find, no matter if it's actually any good or not, then you'll obviously be able to come up with something. I thought it might be common sense to at least try to make the comparison somewhat fair, otherwise, you could probably find a chunky gaming laptop from 2016 that'll beat the Macbook Pro on price-per-meaningless-stat or something the size of small fridge that hums like an air conditioner to take on the Mac Mini. But to what end? Surely you can see how comparing systems that are clearly not even in the same ballpark isn't helping your argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid

bcortens

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2007
1,324
1,796
Canada
So you think it’s possible to sell a $999 product for $799 and keep the margins the same?
Not the same as the $999 product but at a better margin than they are on the $599 Mac mini. This is because we can see from retail prices on memory and storage that Apple is pocketing (by my estimate) $300 of that $400 price increase in increased margin.


If you're going to compare literally any system you find, no matter if it's actually any good or not, then you'll obviously be able to come up with something. I thought it might be common sense to at least try to make the comparison somewhat fair, otherwise, you could probably find a chunky gaming laptop from 2016 that'll beat the Macbook Pro on price-per-meaningless-stat. But to what end? Surely you can see how comparing systems that are clearly not even in the same ballpark isn't helping your argument.
You and others again ignored my point - someone claimed that you couldn’t buy a system from dell at the mini’s price point with anywhere close to 16/512. That is what I was disputing.
 

bcortens

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2007
1,324
1,796
Canada
How fast is it? One of the complaints has been that it’s “criminal” that Apple isn’t transparent about their SSD speeds, so I presume Dell must be and I’m just looking in the wrong place…
I don’t really care, I am not one of those whining about the base storage speeds and am perfectly fine with 2.8 GB/s.
My argument isn’t that the storage on the base Mac mini should be as fast as the m2 Pro Mac mini and never has rested on requiring Apple to use fast storage in the base model.
 

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
9,351
12,580
Not the same as the $999 product but at a better margin than they are on the $599 Mac mini. This is because we can see from retail prices on memory and storage that Apple is pocketing (by my estimate) $300 of that $400 price increase in increased margin.
So this statement is wrong:
Apple could offer more memory and storage at somewhere between $699-799 without hurting margins…
 

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
9,351
12,580
I don’t really care, I am not one of those whining about the base storage speeds and am perfectly fine with 2.8 GB/s.
My argument isn’t that the storage on the base Mac mini should be as fast as the m2 Pro Mac mini and never has rested on requiring Apple to use fast storage in the base model.
You voted "like" on the posts that did, so I assumed that meant you agreed with that view point...
 

boss.king

macrumors 603
Apr 8, 2009
6,380
7,623
You and others again ignored my point - someone claimed that you couldn’t buy a system from dell at the mini’s price point with anywhere close to 16/512. That is what I was disputing.
Do you mean this post?
Which only illustrates that requirements didn’t grow much in the last decade. 8/256 is still the standard industry spec even for premium business laptops.

BTW, if you are looking for an ultra compact mini-pc, pretty much the other option is an Intel NUC, which comes with a CPU comparable to a M1 and no RAM or storage at $600.
Because if so, that Dell certainly is not an ultra-compact mini-PC, nor does it come with a CPU comparable to the M1. It's just a cheap computer that can be configured with 16 GB of (likely much slower) ram and 512GB of SSD storage.

There is this Optiplex model that's closer to the original ask (although still quite a lot bigger) that, when configured to your specs, clocks in at $959. Still worse than a $999 M2 Mini in basically every way, but at least it's a little closer to the challenge.
 

bcortens

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2007
1,324
1,796
Canada
Do you mean this post?

Because if so, that Dell certainly is not an ultra-compact mini-PC, nor does it come with a CPU comparable to the M1. It's just a cheap computer that can be configured with 16 GB of (likely much slower) ram and 512GB of SSD storage.

There is this Optiplex model that's closer to the original ask (although still quite a lot bigger) that, when configured to your specs, clocks in at $959. Still worse than a $999 M2 Mini in basically every way, but at least it's a little closer to the challenge.
You’re right.

I apologize to you and @leman, my brain skipped over the word premium and never looked back…
 

bcortens

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2007
1,324
1,796
Canada
Do you mean this post?

Because if so, that Dell certainly is not an ultra-compact mini-PC, nor does it come with a CPU comparable to the M1. It's just a cheap computer that can be configured with 16 GB of (likely much slower) ram and 512GB of SSD storage.

There is this Optiplex model that's closer to the original ask (although still quite a lot bigger) that, when configured to your specs, clocks in at $959. Still worse than a $999 M2 Mini in basically every way, but at least it's a little closer to the challenge.
I don’t think the PC makers see much value in designing custom small form factor motherboards. It’s one reason I don’t have a gaming PC, I don’t want something large - my needs aren’t high for gaming (I use boot camp on my 2019 MBP right now) but I would like to give up the MBP and have something dedicated to the task, NUCs while the right size, are underpowered.

I doubt you could find something comparable to the Mac mini in form factor, and I think that is one of its selling points.
 

boss.king

macrumors 603
Apr 8, 2009
6,380
7,623
I don’t think the PC makers see much value in designing custom small form factor motherboards. It’s one reason I don’t have a gaming PC, I don’t want something large - my needs aren’t high for gaming (I use boot camp on my 2019 MBP right now) but I would like to give up the MBP and have something dedicated to the task, NUCs while the right size, are underpowered.

I doubt you could find something comparable to the Mac mini in form factor, and I think that is one of its selling points.
There’s an HP machine that gets close. It’s like 1900 USD.

I think one of the main issues is that Intel and AMD and nvidia can’t seem to make powerful components that don’t get crazy hot. Regardless, even just looking at performance per dollar and ignoring form factor, I doubt you’ll find anything that competes with the M1/2 and comes in a 16/512 config for significantly less than what Apple sells their machines for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bcortens

3448322

Cancelled
Jan 27, 2023
21
23
So you think it’s possible to sell a $999 product for $799 and keep the margins the same?
I got this right many posts ago. The reason that config is $999 is because its a bto, and bto margins are higher on purpose. The reason Apple agrees to sell the base model at a lower margin is because it has a shorter useful lifespan. It will become cramped sooner and owners will come back for a replacement sooner rather than later. This is Apple’s business model, to make you buy stuff more often than what’s reasonable.

Ever heard about how early in the 20th century light bulb manufacturers formed a cartel to make sure that no one would make bulbs that were too good and lasted too long? Not apples-to-apples, but it’s something similar at play here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bcortens

smirking

macrumors 68040
Aug 31, 2003
3,917
3,995
Silicon Valley
I got this right many posts ago. The reason that config is $999 is because its a bto, and bto margins are higher on purpose. The reason Apple agrees to sell the base model at a lower margin is because it has a shorter useful lifespan.

This sounds an awful lot like the belief that iPhone battery throttling was a ploy to gimp phones prematurely so people would flock to buy new iPhones ahead of schedule... instead of quite possibly being so incensed that they flock to pick up an Android phone.

People geeking out on sites like these have a skewed idea of what an average user is. Those base machines are going to be more than fine for most of the people I know who aren't in my line of work. If they really wanted to gimp the base machines to force upgrades, they'd downgrade the TB4 port to USB 3.0 speed. TB4 is so fast that you can run your OS off of external drives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Analog Kid

3448322

Cancelled
Jan 27, 2023
21
23
This sounds an awful lot like the belief that iPhone battery throttling was a ploy to gimp phones prematurely so people would flock to buy new iPhones ahead of schedule... instead of quite possibly being so incensed that they flock to pick up an Android phone.

People geeking out on sites like these have a skewed idea of what an average user is. Those base machines are going to be more than fine for most of the people I know who aren't in my line of work. If they really wanted to gimp the base machines to force upgrades, they'd downgrade the TB4 port to USB 3.0 speed. TB4 is so fast that you can run your OS off of external drives.
You sound like someone who trusts the gov more than your own family my friend…

But anyhow, please explain to me then why a mini with a 512gb ssd costs 33% more than the one with 256gb. Do you mean to suggest that that extra 256gb nand increases manufacturing cost for apple by 33%?
 
  • Love
Reactions: bcortens

bcortens

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2007
1,324
1,796
Canada
This sounds an awful lot like the belief that iPhone battery throttling was a ploy to gimp phones prematurely so people would flock to buy new iPhones ahead of schedule... instead of quite possibly being so incensed that they flock to pick up an Android phone.

People geeking out on sites like these have a skewed idea of what an average user is. Those base machines are going to be more than fine for most of the people I know who aren't in my line of work. If they really wanted to gimp the base machines to force upgrades, they'd downgrade the TB4 port to USB 3.0 speed. TB4 is so fast that you can run your OS off of external drives.
It’s pretty clear based on off the shelf prices that Apple charges between 60-80% margin on SSD and Memory. Since I doubt they sell the base mini at a loss it means they are most definitely keeping it with such a paltry specs to encourage people to pay for their ridiculously overpriced BTO options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3448322

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
9,351
12,580
So you think it’s possible to sell a $999 product for $799 and keep the margins the same?
I got this right many posts ago. The reason that config is $999 is because its a bto, and bto margins are higher on purpose. The reason Apple agrees to sell the base model at a lower margin is because it has a shorter useful lifespan. It will become cramped sooner and owners will come back for a replacement sooner rather than later. This is Apple’s business model, to make you buy stuff more often than what’s reasonable.

Ever heard about how early in the 20th century light bulb manufacturers formed a cartel to make sure that no one would make bulbs that were too good and lasted too long? Not apples-to-apples, but it’s something similar at play here.
You're going to have to flesh out the math on this for me, because it sounds like a conspiracy theory driven by a hundred year old lightbulb pact. Work through the product line and explain why this is more sane than the textbook product marketing approach I've been describing.

And how does this align with @bcortens argument that the base storage has been the same for the better part of a decade-- seems like a slow motion strategy if ever there was one. I'm sure Granny's gonna breach that 256GB limit any day now...
 

Analog Kid

macrumors G3
Mar 4, 2003
9,351
12,580
It’s pretty clear based on off the shelf prices that Apple charges between 60-80% margin on SSD and Memory. Since I doubt they sell the base mini at a loss it means they are most definitely keeping it with such a paltry specs to encourage people to pay for their ridiculously overpriced BTO options.
If that was the goal, then why all the added friction of the Build to Order approach?
 

bcortens

macrumors 65816
Aug 16, 2007
1,324
1,796
Canada
If that was the goal, then why all the added friction of the Build to Order approach?
BTO is hardly friction. These days so much is ordered online and when you click buy on any Mac you don’t have to go through any extra steps you’re just brought straight to the configuration page.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.